1.是,有这么个说法。他的论文中也有作解释。大概意思是,国内投资需求有周期性波动,而且跟国内经济波动相符。而国内资源性投资的作用比较大。
2.指国内的经济。意思是,既然某时期中国经济有强劲增长,假如这是由外贸拉动,那么此时外贸额应该也有强劲增长。而事实上并非这样。所以驳斥了中国由外贸拉动的说法。
3.那些是现象而不是论据。作者在论文里也谈到入世的因素,但结果是作用不大。原文如下:
Could China’s WTO accession explain the sustained nature of growth in this period? It is well known, of course, that this period’s rapid growth in both exports and imports reflects to an important degree the WTO-related increase in international-trade-related business ventures in China, both foreign and domestic. Many of them primarily import materials, parts, and kits for completion and assembly for final shipment elsewhere. To this extent, China’s superficial expansion in both imports and exports did not play a role commensurate with appearances. Even without considering pass-through and assembly trade, however, the purely statistical evidence
indicates that exports and net exports were not primary factors causing this period’s growth surge, if they were factors at all.
而关于这次美国经济衰退对中国的影响,当然是有,就像我在别的地方也说过,美国的金融危机并不是中国经济下滑的主要原因。
First of all, was the 2001–2005 surge export led? “Export-led growth” is a phrase that describes a strategy of reliance on export growth to sustain GDP growth. Its counterpart at the other extreme is an “import-substitution” strategy.7 The combination of domestic and foreign demand contributions to GDP (shown in figure 3.13) makes it clear that foreign net demand is a secondary contributor to China’s overall growth that was negligible until 2005. Even the strong net export surge after 2004 did not reflect export growth acceleration but rather an import growth slowdown related to domestic policy efforts to cool the investment boom in 2004-2005 (figure 3.2). Reviewing export performance at the start of the period, figure 3.2 reveals that export levels actually declined as a share of GDP in 2001, the first year of the fast-growth period, before starting a sustained export growth climb in 2002.”